Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Arthur, Paul. “L.A. Confidential”. Review of L.A. Confidential.  Apr 98, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p.41.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

In Arthur’s article of L.A. Confidential He first describes it as “dead serious about its historical backdrop, its relation to the generic lineage of noir storytelling.” He goes into detail about the characters and the actors who portray them, “the central characters are introduced in separate sequences offering three alternative versions of how cops make their way through a morass of graft, department infighting, occupational sadism, and media scrutiny.” He goes on to describes each character and the role in which each actor takes that character. It is a fine evaluation of what the movie is about.

Horsley, Lee. “The Development of Post-war Literary and Cinematic Noir”.  Film Noir. Crime     Culture Films. 30 Mar 2011. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr 2011.

Lee Horsley’s article tells how and when noir got started. How it started out with Gallimard translating British and American novels in the Serie Noire. He talks about the different types of figures that are a part of noir and what were some of the influences that made them what they are. It is an article that basically describes what noir is. It’s about the elements that make up noir from the protagonist to the detective to the femme fatale. It is a good example on the definition of noir.

Luhr, William. “BORDER CROSSINGS IN Out of the Past and LA Confidential”.  Bilingual     Review. Sep - Dec 1998, Vol.23 Issue 3, p.230-236. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.         Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

William Luhr introduces us to what he says is “the most original and enduring American film style, (film noir) which first appeared in the early 1940’s, that has undergone many permutation, and remains a strong presence in contemporary film. The essay examines border relations in two films from that tradition.” They are Out of the Past (1947) and LA Confidential (1997). Both films are presented through the views of the white male in the US and how both are going through erosions in their assumed cultural privilege. It shows how “other ways and peoples” have changed in American film and culture between the 1940’s and the 1990’s.

Phillips, Gene D. “Creatures of Darkness”. Lexington, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky.     2000. Print.

This section of the book talks about how LA Confidential is the best example of neo-noir in the 1990’s. Phillips talks about how it is compared to Chandler’s work. He links the characters in LA Confidential to those in Chandler’s novels.

Shefrin, Elana.  “Le Noir et le Blanc: Hybrid Myths in Devil in a Blue Dress and L. A.      Confidential.”  Literature Film Quarterly. 2005, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p172-181. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

The two movies in this article are “Devil in a Blue Dress (1995) and LA Confidential (1997) are contemporaneous Hollywood films that bear many similarities in time and space. Each has conceptualized the ethnographic perspective within a racially based sociohistorical mythos of post-World War II Los Angeles.” It compares the differences and similarities between the two histories “instantiated within the narration boundaries of the three quintessential American markers: the city of Los Angeles, the detective persona, and the femme fatale.”

L.A. Confidential research paper proposal

LA Confidential

The movie “A Confidential” is a wonderful example of noir. It has the classic aura of mystery with a shot of suspense. It has the writer Sid doing the classic voice over telling the story from the second person point of view. It has the detective (actually 2) and the femme fatale. In this story the protagonist is our femme fatale Lynn Bracken who works as a call girl, yet has goodness in her. There is the detective Bud White who is a clean cop albeit the fact that he uses violence to get the information he needs to wrap up his cases. Then there’s also the newly promoted Ed Exley. Ed strives to do the right thing when the other cops want him not to. The movie is focused in old Hollywood where we see a lot of Hollywood and Vine and there is the quality of the dark streets and crime but done in such a way as to make it neo noir. There is lightness in the lighting of the sets that isn’t conducive to classic noir. There seems to be more levity to the movie than what noir is. The music of noir is there as well as the tone of language you would expect to find. The movie focuses on the corruption of the LAPD and the things the officers to do to make it so. Organized crime plays a huge part in the movie which brings us back to where classic noir originated. It doesn’t start out in the clear way “Double Indemnity “did where you knew who the protagonist was and who wasn’t. It took a ways in the movie in order to discover which part was which, and that alone brought a sense of excitement to the movie. I didn’t think I was going to like the movie, but when all was said and done it was a terrific movie.

Sources

Arthur, Paul. “L.A. Confidential”. Review of L.A. Confidential.  Apr 98, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p.41.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Luhr, William. “BORDER CROSSINGS IN Out of the Past and LA Confidential”.  Bilingual     Review. Sep - Dec 1998, Vol.23 Issue 3, p.230-236. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.         Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Phillips, Gene D. “Creatures of Darkness: Raymond Chandler, detective fiction, and film noir”    Lexington, Ky. The University of Kentucky. 2000. Print.

Rider, Van. “Film Noir”. Crime Culture Films. 30 Mar. 2011. Academic Search Premier.   EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Shefrin, Elena. “Le Noir et le Blanc: Hybrid Myths in Devil in a Blue Dress and L.A.        Confidential”. Literature Film Quarterly, 2005, Vol. 33, Issue 3, p.172-181, 10p.        Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

To be or not to be?

The two stories I chose were “The Girl Who Kissed Barnaby Jones” and “Kinship”. The first one seemed more noir than the second in the way that Cherie called Tate to come over to help her with something. She tried to get him to do something he wasn’t comfortable with thereby causing him to have to choose between right and wrong. It starts on page 295, when Cherie starts telling Tate that he will help her dispose of the man’s body. He even goes so far as to shoot at him for not wanting to help her. In this way I feel that this story has more if the noir feel. The second story, and did anyone notice that there were no quotation marks at all in the entire story? What is that all about?  I felt this story didn’t live up to noir because there wasn’t the femme fatale/protagonist play going on. This story felt like it was one brother helping another. I didn’t at all have the choosing right or wrong element to it. But was more about the family loyalty thing. No one asked Tomas for help, he took it upon himself to avenge his cousins’ son. On page 308, Tomas gets the man that beat up Manny in his truck and then takes him to where Manny is so that he could pay him back. At the end when Manny couldn’t do it Tomas does it for him

Down and Out in LA

In the Kidnapper Bell, Jim wanted sex from his girlfriend (although he was married) so he spiked her beer. He gets dragged into something he had no part of and then played detective to find the sister. In City of Commerce, the guy is a gambler. He has a streak of good luck then bad luck. There doesn't seem to be anything the same about the two stories. But looking at the two men as the protagonists of the stories it would seem that both of them weren't that successful in their endeavors. They both start out thinking they were going to have a good time then something happens that turns that around. They both end up not looking so good. Although in the first story Jim did have choices to make and he made the wrong ones, in the second there weren't any choices to be made. They seemed to be made for him. The similarities I see are that both men are just two unlucky guys.

There's a difference in the meaning

The contrasts between the novel and the film are evident in that the film is able to show the qualities that make noir what it is. The novel hinders those effects because it’s hard to show shadows lets say through words. Those who are unfamiliar to noir wouldn’t be able to understand the elements that are in noir by just reading the book. They would have to see the movie in order to get it. In the book the ending is some far fetched to me. To murder and then to have Keyes send them off on a cruise isn’t the way these things happen. The film has a more believable ending. A price must be paid when a life is taken, not a reward given. Justice was served in a more appropriate way in the film. The significance of the man on crutches is an illustration of the main idea of the film. Mr. Dietrichson is on crutches when his murder takes place with Walter presenting himself on crutches in order to show that Dietrichson was on the train when in fact he wasn’t. It’s the one clue that was used to take the switch of who is who. With the name of the film being Double Indemnity and the insurance connection, it all symbolizes the meaning of the movie.

The Best of The Two

Out of the two stories I liked The Method the best. I thought it was much more expressive with its details and it had more suspense. The character of Richard is secretive because I never truly knew who he was. There was more speculation about how he knew McKay and what their relationship was about. Was he McKay’s lover or was he the elusive Anthony. As for Holly, I see her as the out of work actress but in reality I found her to be the “take what I can get” villain. At first sight she seems to be a nice Midwest kid, but as the story unfolds she turns into someone who is out for herself. She was smart not to trust Richard with the powder by giving it to the rats. But she poisons him before his true identity is revealed. She became cold and calculating after she figures it is poison and not some sedative she was going to give to McKay. I would have liked it better had I known who Richard was. Morroco Junction 90210 was too dry for me. There was no excitement to it. I found it boring

change of blog name

hey guys, I'm really noirdarkness. There's where you'll find my blogs. Noirdarkness1957 was an old one

It's Where You Live

Both stories illustrated the difference in the locations that these stories took place. Dangerous Days took place in Leimert Park. I have no idea where that is or what type of place it is but there was definitely a different feel of the way the story was portrayed. Here we have a place that seems to be mostly lower economic based families who live on the shady side of life. The gangs and their illegal trappings and the back stabbing friends that are in it for what they can get. In Silicon Alley, it is in a more prominent area where people of wealth live. We see a man of means who isn’t all that honest, but provides nicely for his wife and children. We also see that the wife has nicely planned to do away with her husband, grab the chips and go away to be with another man. Both stories involve someone getting killed, but the demographics show the wide variety of ways in which it happens. One part is down and dirty, the other is clean and controlled. I liked Dangerous days.

Things Aren't Always Black and White

I found in the article that neo-noir has the look, style and mood of classic noir, but that it was borrowed from film noir. It emulates the new Hollywood not being able to create true noir because true noir was from a time period.. It would be difficult if not possible to reproduce classic noir. Although many neo-noirs imitate classic noir, it is mainly based on what is currently happening. It is not based around the 1940's but of something that is going on now. Classic noir was an "innocent, unconscious cinematic reaction to the popular culture of its time," but neo-noir are "self-conscious and more than cognizant of their heritage". In true noir the criminal is punished in some way as is the femme fatale, but in neo-noir both often go unpunished. Like in so many other attempts to recreate a classic, neo-noir falls dramatically short of reaching it's potential. Considering that we do not live in the era of WWII it's hard to know how those times felt and how people were. The innocence of the 1940's is gone. The elements that made noir noir don't exist in this time. Noir was based on a particular cultural moment, which included postwar disillusionment, Cold War hysteria, anxiety over womens changing role in society, and the influence of artistic movements which transformed representational systems (article).

It's the noir life

I chose the review in dvdtown by William David Lee. The reason I chose this article was that I liked the way he described the story of Double Indemnity. His quote, “If any movie could so perfectly define a genre, it would be Double Indemnity. The everyman falling under the spell of a scheming siren and plunged into a world of sex, shadows, and crime. He tells that the story stirred up controversy due to the dark and racy content,which made it difficult to adapt to due to Hays Code of censorship,which changed when Billy Wilder came along. He outlines the story by mentioning the events that seem to set up a seemingly perfect crime. For someone who hasn't read the book or seen the movie, his review would tell the story in a clear and concise way. He discusses the actors who were chosen to play the parts of Neff and Dietrichson, as the perennial nice guy, Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, whom Wilder posed this challenge to,” Are you an actress or a mouse?, when she was a bit reluctant to take on the part. He mentions Edward G. Robinson as a 'pseudo-father figure' to Neff. If I had anything negative to say about the article it would be that Lee ends his review abruptly leaving the reader wondering what the rest of the story was about.

Aesthetically Noir

The content of the article tells me what noir is. It's moody, gloomy, and often mysterious. It is crime-infested and cloaked in shadows. It discusses elements of what makes films noir and how the films have changed over the years. Classic films such as The Postman Always Rings Twice, and The Killer Inside Me are two films that are used as an example of film noir. There are lawmen, criminals, and the women who love them. Men who  live to uphold the law and those who are willing to break it. Men who wear suits, concealing a weapon waiting to be discharged. Women who tease and flaunt their beauty in glamorous gowns.  Men and women always looking for the easy way out. A fast buck and a quick tongue that gets them out of plenty of jams with the know-how that enables them to keep coming back for more. The wise-cracking crook and the cocky gumshoe who are forever trying to outwit each other whenever there is the opportunity. The black and white background lends an air of suspense as the music crescendos that has its audience spellbound. Noir leads us into that smoke-filled room where just around the corner are unseen perils and pitfalls; a place where deals are made and broken. It often pulls us into a world so different from what we know that there lies the attraction. It can take us back to a time when deals were made in back rooms where the liquor was weak and the men weren't. When the money came as easy as the women. Noir gives us that piece of mystery that lives within us all and rarely gets a chance to shine.

Dick Tracy You Ain't

Keyes seems to have taken the roll of detective. He senses something isn't right with the way Mr. Nirdlinger died. Norton doesn't want to do anything that may rock the boat of the company, so he just wants to let it play out. Though the case looks like suicide, Keyes is suspicious about the details (57). He describes the various ways for someone to commit suicide, and jumping from a slow moving train isn't one of them (59-60). He has no evidence as to who did it, but he knows this doesn't smell right. Does Keyes have the spider senses that detectives seem to have that has his cockles up? He suspects murder. He also suspects that the wife is the one who did it (60). He also doesn't believe she did it by herself. Norton doesn't want to do anything that may defame the company by bringing false accusations against Phyllis (61-62), but Keyes knows something is going on. He wants to put the heat on her, so that when she cracks he will be there to take her down. He has the uncanny ability to be able to describe the possibilities of the crime. The details of the case just don't add up for Keyes. He isn't comfortable with coincidences. He describes the mechanisms of what appear to be the perfect crime to Walter that has him sweating (66-67). How does Keyes know the exact way the crime went down? Do we suppose that he also has used this scenario in his mind for creating the perfect murder? He'll let this one play out for the meantime while the ducks set themselves up for the big blow-up.

One Toke Over the Line

In the handout "Notes on film noir", Borde and Chaumeton, mentions that; “It is the presence of crime which gives film noir its most constant characteristic.  “The dynamism of violent death” is how Nino Frank evoked it, and the point is well taken.  Blackmail, accusation, theft, or drug trafficking set the stage for a narrative where life and death are at stake.  Few cycles in the entire history of film have put together in seven or eight years such a mix of foul play and murder.  Sordidly or bizarrely, death always comes at the end of a tortured journey.  In every sense of the word, a noir film is a film of death.”  In Double Indemnity, Walter agrees to help our female Phyllis kill her husband (18). You see Walter has worked for the insurance company for so long and he feels that he has the knowledge to go about committing the perfect murder. He describes the best way to go about it in order to have the least amount of questions and for the quickest payoff (20)  Walter tells her that the easiest and most efficient way to do so is a railroad accident (22, 22). This way they get paid double indemnity because the insurance companies figure the least amount of accidents occur on the railroad tracks (clever way to introduce the title of the book). They go on to talk about what they are going to need to pull it off successfully. Walter goes on to dupe Mr. Nirdlinger into buying the kind of insurance that he doesn't need, but Walter and Phyllis do to get the money. Mr. Nirdlinger is none the wiser about the double-cross that is just starting to turn.